DOMINGO vs.

CA (2001) – “Senile lola case” Paulina Rigonan owned 3 parcels of land including the house and warehouse on one parcel. She allegedly sold them at the price of P850 to private respondent spouses Felipe and Concepcion Rigonan who claimed to be her relatives. In 1966, the Eugenio Domingo, Crispin Mangabat and Samuel Capalungan who claim to be her closest surviving relatives allegedly took possession of the and refused to vacate the same. The Rigonan spouses then filed a case against the Domingo saying that they are the rightful owners of the property by virtue of the Deed of Sale executed by Paulina Rigonan in 1965. Domingo contested the alleged deed of absolute sale was void for being spurious as well as lacking consideration. They said that Paulina Rigonan did not sell her properties to anyone. As her nearest surviving kin th within the 5 degree of consanguinity, they inherited the three lots and the permanent improvements thereon when Paulina died in 1966. Was there a valid sale by Paulina Rigonan to spouses Felipe and Concepcion Rigonan? NO. At the time of the execution of the alleged contract, Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. She died an octogenarian, barely over a year when the deed was allegedly executed. The general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years of by reason of physical infirmities. However, when such age or infirmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently, and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniable incapacitated. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima Domingo shows that at the time of the alleged execution of the deed, Paulina was already incapacitated physically and mentally. She narrated that Paulina played with her waste and urinated in bed. Given theses circumstances, there is in our view sufficient reason to seriously doubt that she consented to the sale of and the price for (P850) for her parcels of land. Moreover there is no receipt to show that the said price was paid and received by her. Thus, we are in agreement with the trial court’s finding and conclusion on the matter: “ The whole evidence on record does not show clearly that the fictitious P850 consideration was ever delivered to the vendor. Undisputably, the P859 consideration for the 9 parcels of land including the house and bodega is grossly and shockingly inadequate, and the sale is NULL and VOID AB INITIO.”

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful